All you had to do was a google search. All three of those reasons are correct. Only those 14 have been in the top ten at some point, only those 14 have been in the top 14 as well, and all of them are very prestigious and place well in the legal world. Schools like Texas, UCLA, and Vanderbilt often move around between #15 and #20 and that's why the term T20 is appropriately used for them.

All you had to do was a google search. All three of those reasons are correct. Only those 14 have been in the top ten at some point, only those 14 have been in the top 14 as well, and all of them are very prestigious and place well in the legal world. Schools like Texas, UCLA, and Vanderbilt often move around between #15 and #20 and that's why the term T20 is appropriately used for them.

Ah yeah, you're right, in the very first year they did the rankings a couple non-T14's were in the top 14. That does change things a little, and I was wrong, but (here's the counterpoint you were expecting) since 1990, the second year they did the rankings, the top 14 has been constant.

However, their rep ratings do place them in the top 10 at times. And all of the T14 have either been ranked in the T14, or are considered by a decent number of attorneys as "Top 10" schools. (With "Top 10" simply being a familiar shorthand for any list of top somethings.)

Which is what it really comes down to -- reputation. The T14 have a national reputation, and correponding national placement, that exceeds that of the other schools, even the other "elite" schools like USC, UCLA, Vandy, etc. This, and correpondingly higher student numbers (particularly LSAT scores) is what really distinguishes the T14 from other programs.

If you look at the USNews rep ratings over the last 20 years, they're even more consistent than the overall rankings, and pretty much only the T14 programs consistently score above 4.0 in both peer and practitioner ratings. This specificially reflects broad-based, national prestige, as compared to more regional esteem. (Fordham may get a 4.0 rating among NYC lawyers, but not L.A. lawyers. The reverse will be true for USC.)

Schools like Vandy and UCLA will crack the 4.0 mark periodically in one or other of the rating categories, as they do have strong overall reputations, with relatively national placement. And Texas, I believe, may actually be the only non-T14 school to usually have ratings above 4.0 in both. (Leiter, of course, would argue that Texas does belong with this group.) However, Texas also has more regional placement, for whatever reason, and somewhat lower student numbers, which puts it in a different category for most folks.

The student numbers, of course, are also a major part of the story. LSAT ranges at the T14 tend to be significantly above those at most other schools (although again, UCLA and other schools may come close at times). Boalt was arguably at risk of losing its superior status when its LSAT range started slipping - which is why they revved it back up. But for the most part, the best students want to go to the most reputable, national schools, so that feedback loop has been in place for awhile, and will be difficult for other schools to break.

Personally, I still favor the top 10 designation, consisting of the traditional top "5" (actually 6: HYS, CC, and Michigan), NYU, Boalt, UVA, and Penn, and I don't think there's a huge difference between the other generally elite schools (Duke, Cornell, GULC, Vandy, Texas, UCLA, USC, etc.) However, some in the latter group are have become more national, and ramped up their numbers more over the past couple decades in an effort to be considered comparable to the traditional top 10 programs.

However, their rep ratings do place them in the top 10 at times. And all of the T14 have either been ranked in the T14, or are considered by a decent number of attorneys as "Top 10" schools. (With "Top 10" simply being a familiar shorthand for any list of top somethings.)

Which is what it really comes down to -- reputation. The T14 have a national reputation, and correponding national placement, that exceeds that of the other schools, even the other "elite" schools like USC, UCLA, Vandy, etc. This, and correpondingly higher student numbers (particularly LSAT scores) is what really distinguishes the T14 from other programs.

If you look at the USNews rep ratings over the last 20 years, they're even more consistent than the overall rankings, and pretty much only the T14 programs consistently score above 4.0 in both peer and practitioner ratings. This specificially reflects broad-based, national prestige, as compared to more regional esteem. (Fordham may get a 4.0 rating among NYC lawyers, but not L.A. lawyers. The reverse will be true for USC.)

Schools like Vandy and UCLA will crack the 4.0 mark periodically in one or other of the rating categories, as they do have strong overall reputations, with relatively national placement. And Texas, I believe, may actually be the only non-T14 school to usually have ratings above 4.0 in both. (Leiter, of course, would argue that Texas does belong with this group.) However, Texas also has more regional placement, for whatever reason, and somewhat lower student numbers, which puts it in a different category for most folks.

The student numbers, of course, are also a major part of the story. LSAT ranges at the T14 tend to be significantly above those at most other schools (although again, UCLA and other schools may come close at times). Boalt was arguably at risk of losing its superior status when its LSAT range started slipping - which is why they revved it back up. But for the most part, the best students want to go to the most reputable, national schools, so that feedback loop has been in place for awhile, and will be difficult for other schools to break.

Personally, I still favor the top 10 designation, consisting of the traditional top "5" (actually 6: HYS, CC, and Michigan), NYU, Boalt, UVA, and Penn, and I don't think there's a huge difference between the other generally elite schools (Duke, Cornell, GULC, Vandy, Texas, UCLA, USC, etc.) However, some in the latter group are have become more national, and ramped up their numbers more over the past couple decades in an effort to be considered comparable to the traditional top 10 programs.

I'm curious why you place Mich above NYU. Traditional reputation/prestige aside, do you believe Michigan to be the "better" school (however you define that,) or do you think Mich places better nationally than NYU, or...?

However, their rep ratings do place them in the top 10 at times. And all of the T14 have either been ranked in the T14, or are considered by a decent number of attorneys as "Top 10" schools. (With "Top 10" simply being a familiar shorthand for any list of top somethings.)

Which is what it really comes down to -- reputation. The T14 have a national reputation, and correponding national placement, that exceeds that of the other schools, even the other "elite" schools like USC, UCLA, Vandy, etc. This, and correpondingly higher student numbers (particularly LSAT scores) is what really distinguishes the T14 from other programs.

If you look at the USNews rep ratings over the last 20 years, they're even more consistent than the overall rankings, and pretty much only the T14 programs consistently score above 4.0 in both peer and practitioner ratings. This specificially reflects broad-based, national prestige, as compared to more regional esteem. (Fordham may get a 4.0 rating among NYC lawyers, but not L.A. lawyers. The reverse will be true for USC.)

Schools like Vandy and UCLA will crack the 4.0 mark periodically in one or other of the rating categories, as they do have strong overall reputations, with relatively national placement. And Texas, I believe, may actually be the only non-T14 school to usually have ratings above 4.0 in both. (Leiter, of course, would argue that Texas does belong with this group.) However, Texas also has more regional placement, for whatever reason, and somewhat lower student numbers, which puts it in a different category for most folks.

The student numbers, of course, are also a major part of the story. LSAT ranges at the T14 tend to be significantly above those at most other schools (although again, UCLA and other schools may come close at times). Boalt was arguably at risk of losing its superior status when its LSAT range started slipping - which is why they revved it back up. But for the most part, the best students want to go to the most reputable, national schools, so that feedback loop has been in place for awhile, and will be difficult for other schools to break.

Personally, I still favor the top 10 designation, consisting of the traditional top "5" (actually 6: HYS, CC, and Michigan), NYU, Boalt, UVA, and Penn, and I don't think there's a huge difference between the other generally elite schools (Duke, Cornell, GULC, Vandy, Texas, UCLA, USC, etc.) However, some in the latter group are have become more national, and ramped up their numbers more over the past couple decades in an effort to be considered comparable to the traditional top 10 programs.

I'm curious why you place Mich above NYU. Traditional reputation/prestige aside, do you believe Michigan to be the "better" school (however you define that,) or do you think Mich places better nationally than NYU, or...?

I'm not really placing Mich above NYU, I'm simply noting it was a member of the traditional Top 5, along with the other top 5 (actually top 6) schools. Back in the day, these were the truly recognized elites, with the other schools in a more amorphous "excellent school" category, incuding Georgetown, Vandy, etc. NYU was barely top 10 by this measure in the 1970's. (See Scott Turow's "One-L".)

Today, of course, NYU is clearly top 5 by any measure, and better than Mich by most measures. (Although Mich still has more national placement, and slightly better rep ratings on a national basis, you'll generally be better off coming from NYU for biglaw national placement, although the competitiveness issue should be factored in -- it's easier to do well at Michigan.)

I'm curious why you place Mich above NYU. Traditional reputation/prestige aside, do you believe Michigan to be the "better" school (however you define that,) or do you think Mich places better nationally than NYU, or...?